• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Lazar on home

Status
Not open for further replies.

LeTallecWiz

Doos
Honorary Member
Watford have bid £10 million for him ...
We've rejected it - I assume we want closer to ~£20 million (I highly doubt Watford can spend so much on one player).

How much should we sell him for?

new-liverpool-signing-lazar-markovic-gives-first-interview-since-move-i-want-to-win-titles-here.jpg
 
Watford received £103m from the PL alone last season. Isn't Troy Deeney going to be on his way for a bucketload too ? They can easily afford £20m but I suspect we'll settle for £15m + add-ons + buyback clause.

2016-17-payments-to-clubs-article.jpg
 
Watford received £103m from the PL alone last season. Isn't Troy Deeney going to be on his way for a bucketload too ? They can easily afford £20m but I suspect we'll settle for £15m + add-ons + buyback clause.

Is a buyback clause ever needed unless we seriously think we might WANT to buy a player back? With Owen it could have made all the difference, and with Fowler it would have been wise, and if they come from the academy and move on at a very young age, sure, but otherwise what's the point? If you sell a player and they go on to better things, would they want to go back, for less money, to the club that previously had no faith in them?

We're not going to want Markovic back so don't waste time cluttering up a contract with clauses that are just for show. Just concentrate on a sell-on clause at a very good percentage.

As for Watford, I think their record signing is about £13m, so I doubt they'll go beyond that for Markovic. We'd get more for him elsewhere.
 
Is a buyback clause ever needed unless we seriously think we might WANT to buy a player back? With Owen it could have made all the difference, and with Fowler it would have been wise, and if they come from the academy and move on at a very young age, sure, but otherwise what's the point? If you sell a player and they go on to better things, would they want to go back, for less money, to the club that previously had no faith in them?

We're not going to want Markovic back so don't waste time cluttering up a contract with clauses that are just for show. Just concentrate on a sell-on clause at a very good percentage.

As for Watford, I think their record signing is about £13m, so I doubt they'll go beyond that for Markovic. We'd get more for him elsewhere.
Buyback : isn't it always better to have it than not, even if not utilised in 99% of cases ? Rarely would the player be brought back for the team but to sell-on to maximise profit in a player we invested time and money in. Morata a perfect example.

'Cluttering up' a contract doesn't make sense. It's becoming a standard clause now and let the lawyers sort it out, it's what they are being paid for.
 
I really hope we know what we're doing in rejecting these large bids for shit players. I'll be over the moon if we get more obviously, but they're worth nowhere near what's currently been offered.
 
Buyback : isn't it always better to have it than not, even if not utilised in 99% of cases ? Rarely would the player be brought back for the team but to sell-on to maximise profit in a player we invested time and money in. Morata a perfect example.

'Cluttering up' a contract doesn't make sense. It's becoming a standard clause now and let the lawyers sort it out, it's what they are being paid for.

Yes, sell on to maximise profit. A sell on clause. But buy back clauses are usually just pointless. Take every deal on its own merits, sure, but it's become just another lazy thing people say about every deal. And as for it now being standard, it isn't - clubs are often very resistant to any of these clauses, they delay deals by days and in some cases weeks, and sometimes lead to deadlock, so don't just lob them in on a whim.
 
Yeah, I don't want him back. Sell on clause is good, and might mean we eventually recoup what we paid for him.
 
Buyback : isn't it always better to have it than not, even if not utilised in 99% of cases ? Rarely would the player be brought back for the team but to sell-on to maximise profit in a player we invested time and money in. Morata a perfect example.

'Cluttering up' a contract doesn't make sense. It's becoming a standard clause now and let the lawyers sort it out, it's what they are being paid for.

I think Real and a few others have used the buyback clause to their advantage.

Way I see it, if a player moves and does exceptionally well- catapulting their value well beyond expectation - then the buy-back clause offers the original selling club a reasonable price ceiling - often below what the new market value of the player is - in order to bring that player back, often then just to sell on again.

Makes sense to me.
 
Zenit are interested, as are clubs in Italy and Portugal according to the Echo I think it was.
No point in accepting the first bid when there is so much interest.

But sell him. He sadly isnt up to it for us. Its a shame because I think he was pretty badly treated by Rodgers.
Benched after a good game on more than one occasion and was played as a left wing back.

But all in all, not good enough.
 
Zenit are interested, as are clubs in Italy and Portugal according to the Echo I think it was.
No point in accepting the first bid when there is so much interest.

But sell him. He sadly isnt up to it for us. Its a shame because I think he was pretty badly treated by Rodgers.
Benched after a good game on more than one occasion and was played as a left wing back.

But all in all, not good enough.

No doubt you thought he was great and that Klopp would turn him into around after such dreadful mistreatment from Rodgers
 
Yes, sell on to maximise profit. A sell on clause. But buy back clauses are usually just pointless. Take every deal on its own merits, sure, but it's become just another lazy thing people say about every deal. And as for it now being standard, it isn't - clubs are often very resistant to any of these clauses, they delay deals by days and in some cases weeks, and sometimes lead to deadlock, so don't just lob them in on a whim.
Brendan covered it here : http://www.sixcrazyminutes.com/index.php?threads/lazar-on-home.103896/#post-1586381

And yes it's a growing trend. And unless you have proof that it causes excessive delays and can cause lost deals that's pure speculation. Personally I doubt it would ever get to that stage.
 
Yeah, I don't want him back. Sell on clause is good, and might mean we eventually recoup what we paid for him.
The problem with 'Sell-on' as opposed to 'Buy-back' clasues is they are usually for small percentages, 5-10% I believe is typical. Whereas a buy-back clause could enable a major windfall, doubling his original transfer fee or better. It's rare but does happen and so why not include the clause for that 1:100 as well as having the Sell-on clause in situations where we are not interested in the `Buy-back' ? It's why FSG have started introducing them.
 
Oh do whatever you want froggy. god it's boring this endless repetition until a surrender. All you've actually done is redescribe one clause to suit you, and redescribe the other one, too. Result: that's your reality. I don't agree and I do know instances to show it, but christ is it worth it. I say deal with individual deals on merit, you advocate a general rule regardless? Is that it? Presumably so otherwise there's no real disagreement. But whatever. Brilliant mate, it's a great idea. There, now for gods sake leave it.
 
Is a buyback clause ever needed unless we seriously think we might WANT to buy a player back?

We're not going to want Markovic back so don't waste time cluttering up a contract with clauses that are just for show.

"Show" is what it would be. A negotiating tactic. "Hmmm, really don't want to get rid of this guy, his potential is enormous." Rather than - ".. and we hope never to see him again, the useless buffoon".
 
When fit and on form he was by far one of their better players, in a dizzy market where normal boring players can go for big bundles of cash I think he is worth the 20M.

Whether they will go for that is another question.
 
if they've opened with ten then it's a given they'll pay more. that's fucking obvious so why would we accept it?
 
"Show" is what it would be. A negotiating tactic. "Hmmm, really don't want to get rid of this guy, his potential is enormous." Rather than - ".. and we hope never to see him again, the useless buffoon".

God, is that how you think it works? That crudely? Maybe the Salah deal has really taken that long because we've haggled over a single sum? With him there almost certainly was a buy back clause among many others, understandably, but my point, though so eagerly misconstrued by some, is that you don't bother with that when there is no real interest in that and there are far better and more practical battles to fight.
 
I think Real and a few others have used the buyback clause to their advantage.

Way I see it, if a player moves and does exceptionally well- catapulting their value well beyond expectation - then the buy-back clause offers the original selling club a reasonable price ceiling - often below what the new market value of the player is - in order to bring that player back, often then just to sell on again.

Makes sense to me.
Works for Madrid because they have to sell good players because a majority of their players are good. Their youth doesn't get a sniff unless they're incredible.

They bought morata back just to sell him.

I can think of 3 players I would have liked a back back clause on in the last 20 years. The rest a sell on fee would do

Markovic will never be up to standard, so why even pretend like we'd want him back, or if he'd want to come back. Just sell on fee and be done with it.
 
Yes, sell on to maximise profit. A sell on clause. But buy back clauses are usually just pointless. Take every deal on its own merits, sure, but it's become just another lazy thing people say about every deal. And as for it now being standard, it isn't - clubs are often very resistant to any of these clauses, they delay deals by days and in some cases weeks, and sometimes lead to deadlock, so don't just lob them in on a whim.
I'm sure Utd wish they put one in with Pogba
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom